Time for a radical rethink on the penalty system?

[Perth Red]

With all the debate about bans and no charges it might be a good time to consider a radical rethink on a very traditional penalty system. With the game being all about entertainment and eyes on TVs to generate its revenue is our current system of sitting out players for fouled play a smart solution? We are seeing stars missing games sometimes for some pretty innocuous stuff, wouldn’t we rather see them on the field? We have pseudo courts of law with lawyers earning a mint trying to get players off bans.

So what might a new system look like? Maybe we only use match bans for the very worse of offenders. The deliberate dirty play stuff. Everything else cops a hefty financial penalty to the player. After all of penalties are mainly for deterrent reasons what will change a players behaviour more, a one match ban or a $10k hit in the pocket? Basically have a $10k fine for equivalent of each match ban, so what is currently a one match ban costs a player $10k, an equivalent 3 match ban offence $30k etc. so latrell would have been hit with a $40k fine this week but we would see his talents out on the field for the next month.

on top of that refs supported to brandish the yellow or red card for offences more often in games. That not only adds to the penalty for the player and club on the day but also means the team offended against actually gains some benefit. So again latrell gets sent off last week, tigers probably win the game which is a cost to souths but sending off sufficient and a hefty fine for latrell but, the game isnt robbed of one of its star attractions for a month.

so,is it time to change the system and keep the stars on the field but benefit clubs on the day that are fouled against?

 

[Someguy]

so,is it time to change the system and keep the stars on the field

I think we do pretty well in this regard, no name players tend to cop higher gradings than superstars when it comes to the MRC

 

[siv]

The problem continues to be the people who lay the MRC charges

So many charges go unnoticed

Then they focus on specific players

I think there needs to be a system where clubs can request certain incidents be reviewed

Then we need non former players doing the grading. Former players continue to be biased or inconsistent in their gradings. One week its grade 1 next week same incident is grade 2

Loading just needs to be scraped

Also dont think Grade 1 should be a $ fine while Grade 2 ends up with 3 or 4 weeks on the sideline

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Fining players, unless its a very hefty penalty, for any indiscretion either on or off field is meaningless, clubs will always find ways to reimburse them.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Is this what qualifies as a 'radical rethink'?

Sounds more like slight alterations.

Keep at it Aristotle.

 

[Perth Red]

Is this what qualifies as a 'radical rethink'?

Sounds more like slight alterations.

Keep at it Aristotle.

We’ve used the banning players from future matches penalty system since the game began, so yeh I’d say moving to a predominantly fine based different system from that is pretty radical!

 

[age.s]

Can we call the group that administers this system "The Apex Committee?"

 

[snickers007]

We’ve used the banning players from future matches penalty system since the game began, so yeh I’d say moving to a predominantly fine based different system from that is pretty radical!

Is there any proof that less people are watching games this weekend because Latrell has been sat down?

Seems like you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

For the record, I actually agree with increasing the monetary penalty at the judiciary. I'd also be happy to introduce monetary penalties as well as match suspensions for certain offences.

But I can't agree that the NRL should be bending over backwards to allow players committing foul play to stay on the field.

I think your read on what makes a better deterrent is all wrong. I think players want to play, the money is a bonus.

 

[Zoe Palmer]

The system is a joke. Too many incidents of citings for events where a penalty on the field should be enough
The inconsistencies in what’s cited by the MRC is a major issue

 

[10$ Ferret]

The simple notion that some people think Talakai's tackle was legal I think identifies where the real problem is.

Saying that I think he should have been binned from the start for that haircut

 

[The_Frog]

The inconsistencies in what’s cited by the MRC is a major issue

Have someone explain MRC decisions like Annesley did for the Munster non-citing against us, which it turned out was a correct decision even though it looked bad initially. Of course these sort of videos are pretty dry and I don't imagine all that many fans would watch them.

I think there needs to be a system where clubs can request certain incidents be reviewed

This is what happened in the past. It led to inconsistencies too. Clubs would only act if they got an injury.

 

[siv]

This is what happened in the past. It led to inconsistencies too. Clubs would only act if they got an injury.

Then let the MRC to charge, but clubs reserve the right to ask for other incudents to be reviewed.

Thus means the MRC becomes accountable. And uf the MRC choose to ugnore something the clubs can formally challenge it.

 

[Perth Red]

I think your read on what makes a better deterrent is all wrong. I think players want to play, the money is a bonus.

maybe in days of old but with the modern players a $10k fine is going to hurt them much more than a week off.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

maybe in days of old but with the modern players a $10k fine is going to hurt them much more than a week off.

It's going to hurt the guy on $100k more than the bloke on $1M ten times as much.
Where's the fairness in that?

 

[JamesRustle]

It's going to hurt the guy on $100k more than the bloke on $1M ten times as much.
Where's the fairness in that?

And non-Roosters players moreso again.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I’ve now heard 2 x foxsports folk (Anasta n Rothfield) talk about the Periera hit as something that should be a send off - which included rationale that it was against James Tedesco.,,

There-in lies a problem.

It shouldn’t be about who an offence was against. But this lot are promoting it that way. Whether it was Tedesco or John Nobody-Smith should be absolutely irrelevant...

It’s like seasons ago and Johnathan Thurstons complaints about being unfairly “attacked”... and subsequent foxsports folk saying “we need to protect the playmakers”....

No. Completely off the mark.

All players should be protected. From 1-17 and whether it’s your debut game or your 490th... being a “playmaker” or star player should not make you a koala bear... it should not matter who you are.... if illegal contact is made to the head on Cleary or Joe Bloggs - the same penalty should apply.

I don’t agree with sin bins for head contact. If anything, I think taking the offender off the field for 10 minutes BUT allowing a substitute / replacement would be far more acceptable.

The days of players intentionally taking out an opponent are long long gone. The majority of high shots are accidental and cause no harm. Of course some do cause harm and this can get into a grey area..but a lot of this grey area is exacerbated by the flimsy HIA rules the NRL have initiated. Open to rorting...

We are now seeing penalties, sin bins, and suspensions on players who have not gone anywhere near the head of an opponent in a tackle .... for supposed “shoulder charges”.. eg Ravalawa ... and some where it can’t be proven any head contact was made... eg Curran...

Yet the vast majority of tackles will always have the shoulder as the first point of contact with the ball carrier...

That’s my rant but to me it’s simple..

If you hit the head of an opponent.. there should be scalable penalties as a result. If you don’t, no penalty should apply.

 

[nick87]

alright, go with me here guys.

But it's called Topball...

 

[Zadar]

Get rid of the loading, or reduce the time of the loading to the last 12 matches, not the past two years.

 

[Vee]

I’ve now heard 2 x foxsports folk (Anasta n Rothfield) talk about the Periera hit as something that should be a send off - which included rationale that it was against James Tedesco.,,

There-in lies a problem.

The problem is that you're listening to Bwaith and Sloshfeld.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

The problem is that you're listening to Bwaith and Sloshfeld.

I hear them, but I don’t listen to them. There’s a subtle difference...